judgment, in its entirety, available for one year on the official websites of the Legislature and the Judiciary. The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the said publications, regardless of the one-year time frame for presenting its first report, as indicated in the ninth operative paragraph of this judgment. D. Other measures requested 191. The Commission asked that the State “[a]dapt domestic law to ensure that sanction proceedings against agents of justice are compatible with the standards on judicial independence.” It requested that the State “ensure that sanction proceedings against judges are subject to legal control and not political control”; that it “regulate applicable sanctions appropriately so that they comply with the principle of legality”; that it “allow judges to appeal to a higher authority in any sanction procedure,” and that “the authorities in charge of proceedings to sanction judges provide reasons for their decisions.” 192. The representatives asked, as other measures of satisfaction, that the Court order the State “to hold a public act” during which it “apologized,” and also “to place a plaque with the victims’ names […] in recognition of, and in order to recall, […] the struggle for the […] independence of the Judiciary.” Regarding Mr. Fernández Gadea, they asked that the Court order “the Executive to issue a decree recognizing that […] he died while a justice of the Supreme Court of Justice.” 193. Regarding guarantees of non-repetition, they asked that the Court order the State to “enact a law adapting the domestic laws on impeachment,” which should function “both for those who exercise political office and for judges.” They asked that the Court order the “reform of the system for prosecuting lower court judges, eliminating political representation and ex officio proceedings. They asked that the Court order the State to “incorporate into the educational curricula […] the rights and guarantees established in the Convention,” and that it arrange “training on human rights for judges and other officials […], and establish […] courses and programs on the theory and practice of judicial independence and impartiality.” Lastly, they asked that the Court order the State “to forward the judgment […] to the universities […], so that […] it is incorporated into their curricula.” 194. The State argued that it was unnecessary to order measures of satisfaction other than the publication of the judgment because the other measures requested “exceeded the scope of the case.” Regarding the guarantees of non-repetition, it argued that, when calling for the requested measures, “confusion existed between the impeachment of justices of the [Supreme] Court [of Justice] and the procedure for the dismissal of lower-ranking judges.” It indicated that, in Paraguay, Law No. 3759/2009 regulated the procedure for the prosecution and removal of justices and that, in addition to establishing remedies against final judgments, article 14 of that law included “twenty specific causes that exemplify the improper performance of functions.” It also indicated that Senate Resolution No. 825 of July 3, 2015, established that the impeachment procedure regulated in that instrument "will be used hereafter […] in all cases,” and this has been respected in practice. Regarding the training activities requested by the representatives, it indicated that they are unrelated to the facts of the case. 195. With regard to the measures of satisfaction requested by the representatives, the Court agrees with the State that the publication of this judgment constitutes per se an adequate measure; accordingly, it does not find it necessary to order additional measures under this heading. 196. Regarding guarantees of non-repetition, the Court notes that everything relating to the impeachment procedure or the eventual prosecution and sanction of judicial authorities, other 47